Top 10 Questions Science Can’t Answer (2023 Edition)

With the increasing progress of science and as a result of technology, every day we see new achievements and find answers to more questions. However, there are still unanswered questions and scientists are still working on them. Questions that have been raised since ancient times and have not been fully answered.

We are very eager to know these questions. If you also want to know top 10 questions science cant anwswer, this article is for you, stay with us…

The dynamic human mind has always been a step higher than any science and has always sought curiosity and asked questions from scientists, books, articles and wise people. The answer is that this problem is not your only problem and the reason is that the world we live in is a strange place. which sometimes can overcome any logic……

 

question number one:

What Came Before The Big Bang?/Has The Universe Existed Forever?/Or Was There Something Before It?

To find out, we need a working theory of quantum gravity and a new conception of time. It is interesting to know that having a theory also does not help us, because our main unanswered question is whether there was a big bang of the era or not.

Lee Smolin, Max and Richard were among the diligent thinkers who, despite their high knowledge, always Because of this one question, they have failed to continue this amazing adventure.

Let’s read my active scientist Max’s opinion about this: Suddenly the outward rush of 200 billion galaxies slips into reverse. Instead of expanding at pace, the universe is now imploding like a deflating balloon: faster and faster, smaller and smaller, everything hurtling together until the entire cosmos is squeezed into an inconceivably hot, dense pinprick. Then Pushtu! The screen goes dead.

According to the big bang theory – our best explanation for why space is expanding – everything exploded from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago. Cosmologists have been able to wind things back to within a tiny fraction of a second of this moment. But now they’re stuck.

The trouble is, our understanding of space-time, and gravity in particular, is built from Einstein’s equations of general relativity, whereas the extreme conditions of the very early universe can only be described by quantum mechanics. No one knows how to reconcile the two to take us further back.

“The rules we have simply don’t work in that regime” says Richard  at Imperial College London. “Nothing makes sense any more.”

question number two:

How Does A Bicycle Stay Upright?

its so strange that We thought we knew the maths behind cycling. you get  shocked that you know that We were wrong!  So To find the answer to this question, scientists have tried in different fields to find the answer to this question.

Despite  effort by Rowena and his colleagues, including Arend Schwab from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and Jim Papadopoulos from the University of Wisconsin-Stout As a last scientific effort, The researchers haven’t been resting on their saddles since.

strange fact is here ,IN 2011, an international team of bi-pedal enthusiasts dropped the bombshell that, despite 150 years of analysis, no one knows how a bicycle stays upright. Across the world, riders dismounted and stared at their bikes in disbelief. What they had been doing for years was a feat inexplicable by science!

some reserchers also skewed the trail and gyroscopic forces in prototype bikes to make them technically unrideable. To everyone’s surprise, the bikes were still stable!

Well, sort of. “What we don’t know are the simple, necessary or sufficient conditions for a bicycle to be self-stable,” says Andy Ruina, an engineer at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

question number three:

Is The Universe Infinite Or Just Very Big?

The size of the observable universe is easy enough to measure, but what lies beyond the cosmic horizon?

We have a long way to go to find out! because,WE’VE known the size of Earth since the time of the ancient Greeks. The sun, solar system and Milky Way? No problem. But when it comes to the size of the universe, we haven’t got a clue.

One way to think about the size of the observable universe is to consider how far light emitted at the big bang could have travelled by now. According to our best cosmological models, that distance is about 46 billion light-years. This is the cosmic “horizon”, a sort of three-dimensional equivalent of the 2D-horizon we see on Earth.

“That is as far as we can see and how big, empirically, we can observe the universe to be,” says Adam Riess of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who shared the Nobel prize in 2011 for the discovery that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. “Of course we are pretty sure it goes out much farther.”

maybe you askWhy? Because the universe looks very similar no matter which way you look. Take the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the radiation left behind by the big bang. It is largely uniform across the sky, and we have no reason to think that would change beyond the cosmic horizon. There are no signs the universe is tailing off, so it would be …?

question number four:

How Long Does A Proton Live?

They are the essential heart of every atom, so it’s just as well we’ve never seen a proton fall apart. But they can’t live forever – can they?

THE BIBLE of fundamental physics, The Review of Particle Physics, devotes several pages to the ways a proton might fall apart. Each “decay mode” comes with an estimate of how long you might expect to wait to see one of these particles, bedrocks of the atomic nucleus, disintegrate that way.

The units are 1030 years – thousands of billions of billions of billions of years. Our stripling universe is a mere 13.8 billion years old, so this is a judicious, scientific way of saying that no one has ever seen a proton decay.

You’d think people would be pleased that the particles we’re all made of are stable. Physicists too: their “standard model” of particle interactions firmly indicates that protons, as the lightest particles constructed of three quarks, should never decay.

So why is “never” not good enough? The answer is that few believe the functional but ramshackle standard model is up to snuff. So-called grand unified theories provide a more coherent account of three of nature’s forces – gravity remains aloof – at the price of the proton decaying.

“It’s the signal of a grand unified theory” says Benjamin Allanach, a theorist at the University of Cambridge.But can it be a definitive answer for the general public?exactly not!

question number five:

Why Is Ice Slippery?

Most think it’s down to a liquid layer, but can’t agree on how it forms. One theory insists it’s a “supersolid skin” capable of electrostatic repulsion. For physicists no less than figure skaters, ice is remarkably hard to get a grip on. The overwhelming consensus is that ice has low friction because of a thin film of liquid water coating its surface.

Hence skaters balanced on thin metal blades can glide smoothly across the ice rink, but grind to a halt on the wooden floor beyond. The tricky part is how this liquid layer forms. More than a century of research has brought us little closer to a definitive answer.

It all started in June 1850, when Michael Faraday told an audience at London’s Royal Institution of how pressing two ice cubes together led to them forming a single block. He attributed this to the appearance of an intervening film of water that quickly refreezes.

For many years, the appearance of this layer of water was put down to pressure. In fact, even a person of above-average weight on a single skate generates far too little pressure to account for the observed melting, says Anne-Marie Kietzig of McGill University in Montreal, Canada. “The mathematics doesn’t work out.”

You might think that would be the end of it. But Changqing Sun of Nanyang Technical University in Singapore has other ideas. He argues that since ice is slippery even when you’re standing still, friction cannot be the whole story. “Mechanisms such as friction heating and pressure melting have been ruled out,” he says.

question number six:

What Is Glass?

Things aren’t as clear as you might think. Glass is a weird kind of solid liquid – and how it comes to be like that defies all explanation. FORGET the hoary myths peddled by tour guides at old European churches and cathedrals.

Medieval window panes are sometimes thicker at the bottom not because of the slow flow of glass over centuries, but because of the uneven way molten glass was originally rolled into sheets in the Middle Ages.

Glass is not a slow-moving liquid. It is a solid, albeit an odd one. It is called an amorphous solid because it lacks the ordered molecular structure of true solids, and yet its irregular structure is too rigid for it to qualify as a liquid. In fact, it would take a billion years for just a few of the atoms in a pane of glass to shift at all.

“It would take a billion years for just a few of the atoms in a pane of glass to shift at all” But not everything about glass is quite so clear. How it achieves the switch from liquid to amorphous solid, for one thing, has remained stubbornly opaque.

When most materials go through this transition between liquid and solid states, their molecules instantly rearrange. In a liquid the molecules are moving around freely, then snap! – they are more or less locked into a tightly knit pattern.

But the transition from the glassblower’s red-hot liquid to the transparent solids we drink from and peer through doesn’t work like that. Instead of a sudden change, the movement of molecules gradually slows as the temperature drops, retaining all the structural disorder of a liquid but acquiring the distinctive physical properties of a solid. In other words, in all forms of glass we see something unusual!

question number seven:

Can We Get Energy From Nothing?

The Casimir effect suggests that the vacuum is fizzling with ephemeral particles. Is it real? And can we harness this energy concealed in empty space?

IT DEPENDS what you mean by nothing. Ask a physicist about a vacuum, the very definition of nothingness for most of us, and they will tell you it is pulsing with activity. According to quantum theory, in a vacuum wave-like fields are constantly fluctuating, producing particles and their antimatter equivalents that fizzle in and out of existence.

So even in the depths of interstellar space, there is plenty going on in what we call zilch.

This idea leads to some outlandish predictions. In 1948, the physicist Hendrik Casimir proposed that if you place two parallel metal plates close to each other in a vacuum, there will be more quantum electromagnetic fluctuations either side of the plates than between them.

Their proximity limits the wavelength of fluctuations in that space, creating a force pushing the plates together. The phenomenon became known as the Casimir effect.

It’s a weakling force but it has been detected. And more recently, physicists like Chris Wilson, now at the University of Waterloo in Canada, have tried to prove another eccentric prediction: that it is possible to use the effect to release latent energy.

Trouble is, you can’t accelerate even the tiniest mirror to the huge speeds required. So in 2011 Wilson and his colleagues tested the dynamical Casimir effect, as it’s known, by using rapidly changing electrical currents to simulate the effect of minuscule mirrors whooshing together at a quarter of the speed of .

question number eight:

Why Does Space Have Three Dimensions?

The universe might go awry if not for the familiar three dimensions, but theories of everything say there should be more. What are we missing?

AH, BUT does it? For anyone versed in modern theoretical physics, that’s not such a silly question. “I don’t know any mathematical reason why three-dimensional space is more consistent than any other number,” says Leonard Susskind of Stanford University in California.

Susskind is one of the founders of string theory, which is our best stab yet at a unified understanding of physics – and perhaps the best-known model in which extra dimensions are found. One of string theory’s peculiar features is that when applied to fewer than nine spatial dimensions, the mathematics goes wild, predicting violent fluctuations that rip apart the very fabric of the universe.

But extra dimensions do more than just save string theory’s blushes. In a wider set of theories, gravity leaking into a higher space could explain why in our three dimensions it is so weak compared with the other fundamental forces, and why the expansion of the universe is apparently accelerating.

perhaps you asked the question becomes: why does space have three visible dimensions? One idea from string theory is that the universe started out as an infinitesimally small 9D ball of string, but only three strands unfurled in its subsequent headlong expansion, leaving the others tucked up tightly in every pixel of our 3D space.

Or perhaps our 3D universe exists on one of many “branes”, membrane-like entities that float around in a larger, higher-dimensional space.

question number nine:

Why Do We Move Forwards In Time?

Time goes by, or so it seems. It could be an illusion, or we might need to rescue the flow of time by meddling with our concept of space

THERE is a reason we say time goes by: it seems to flow. No matter how still we stand in space, we move inexorably through time, dragged as if in a current. As we do, events steadily pass from the future, via the present, to the past.Isaac Newton saw this as a fundamental truth.

“All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is not liable to any change,” he wrote.

So how does time flow, and why always in the same direction? Many physicists will tell you that’s a silly question. “The idea that time can in some meaningful sense be said to flow, it’s just a complete non-starter,” says Huw Price, a philosopher at the University of Cambridge.

For time to flow, it must do so at some speed. But speed is measured as a change over time. So how fast does time flow? George Ellis, a cosmologist from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, has an answer: “One second per second.” Price says that’s meaningless.

Even if time were standing still, it could be said that for every second that passes, one second passes. Indeed, if that’s a measure of flow, we could say that space flows: it passes at one metre per metre.

question number ten:

Where Does Quantum Weirdness End?

In the bizarre reality of the quantum world, particles can be in two places at once. Why can’t golf balls or milk do the same?

“WE DO not find, at breakfast, that the milk is simultaneously poured onto our cornflakes and not,” says Andrew Briggs, a physicist at the University of Oxford. Nor can you be in two places at the same time, no matter how hard you try. None of which is even remotely surprising.

Until, that is, you consider that the laws of quantum mechanics insist that subatomic particles such as electrons routinely pull off such a feat.

So if electrons can pop up in multiple places at once, why can’t milk and humans – essentially collections of fundamental particles – do the same? Here we have to start small. This particular brand of quantum weirdness is best illustrated by the double-slit experiment, where you fire a beam of electrons, one after another, at a screen containing two slits.

You would expect the electrons to pass through one slit and hit the detector placed behind the screen at a single point every time. But reality isn’t always that straightforward.

When researchers don’t keep track of each electron’s path, the beam passes through both slits simultaneously in the same way as a light wave, creating a pattern of bright and dark stripes on the detector that is characteristic of two overlapping wavefront. So electrons can exist as both waves and particles at the same time – a phenomenon known as wave-particle duality.

As if that wasn’t weird enough, when researchers monitor one of the slits, the interference pattern disappears. Electrons suddenly abandon their wave-like behavior, preferring to travel through one slit and produce a single spot on the detector.

Conclusion

Thank you for staying with Top 10 questions science cant answer: until the end of this article! You must have been surprised by reading these questions or even before these questions have been associated in your mind.

In addition to these 10 questions, there may be other questions in your mind that remain unanswered, and this is a completely natural issue, because different scientists with a lot of science failed to answer some scientific questions and decided that an interesting collaboration With other sciences, it should have sciences such as algebra, probability, mathematics, etc…

However, our suggestion is that you should not stop studying, studying always makes you have an informed and dynamic mind.